Can POTUS veto a Congressional declaration of war?

[dc_]

I want to understand better the power of the President as Commander-in-Chief under the Constitution, so my question is pretty simple: If Ron Paul were POTUS then war would have to be declared through an act of Congress. They can either issue a declaration of war or an "authorization to use military force," and if they did is the President Constitutionally required to carry out that war? Or can he veto?

 

[John of Des Moines]

I want to understand better the power of the President as Commander-in-Chief under the Constitution, so my question is pretty simple: If Ron Paul were POTUS then war would have to be declared through an act of Congress. They can either issue a declaration of war or an "authorization to use military force," and if they did is the President Constitutionally required to carry out that war? Or can he veto?

The President has to sign all acts of Congress for the act to become law.

 

[robertwerden]

There is a veto proof vote that can happen in an act of war if there are enough votes, so If Ron got a declaration to sign that had a super majority, he would have to follow the congresses declaration. However where and how the troop movements go are entirely up to the commander in chief. Theoretically the war can simply go cold and no troop movements are ordered.
The key factor to understand is, the war can be declared, but the method of battle could be negotiations rather than bombs. I think though if the congress by the will of the people declared war, it would probably be necessary for the President to act.

 

[dc_]

The President has to sign all acts of Congress for the act to become law.

Thank you, all acts of congress must be signed, a declaration of war is just another act of congress. got it.

There is a veto proof vote that can happen in an act of war if there are enough votes, so If Ron got a declaration to sign that had a super majority, he would have to follow the congresses declaration. However where and how the troop movements go are entirely up to the commander in chief. Theoretically the war can simply go cold and no troop movements are ordered.
The key factor to understand is, the war can be declared, but the method of battle could be negotiations rather than bombs. I think though if the congress by the will of the people declared war, it would probably be necessary for the President to act.

Very good answer. This greatly helps my understanding. If war is declared with a super majority, then the president must act. As Commander in chief, he has very wide latitude on how to actually conduct the war.

Thanks both for taking your time on my sort-of hypothetical question.

 

[osan]

There is a veto proof vote that can happen in an act of war if there are enough votes, so If Ron got a declaration to sign that had a super majority, he would have to follow the congresses declaration. However where and how the troop movements go are entirely up to the commander in chief. Theoretically the war can simply go cold and no troop movements are ordered.
The key factor to understand is, the war can be declared, but the method of battle could be negotiations rather than bombs. I think though if the congress by the will of the people declared war, it would probably be necessary for the President to act.

And yet the POTUS is the CIC, meaning he can simply not move troops if he sees fit. This would force the Congress into make a put up or shut up decision and that could be a problem, unless of course the resurrected corpses of both Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were discovered landing troops of the Legion of Mohammedan Jihadists of the Seventy Two Virgins on the shores of NJ, in which case they might be moved to impeach... or give him a promotion.